Givers and Takers in Relationships Part 1 of 4 - Introduction

This month’s newsletter comes in
four parts - published weekly through this month. The overall topic is
Givers and Takers in Relationships

Recently, I’ve been hearing these words, givers
and takers, more frequently than usual. A divorced client characterized
her previous marriage by saying: “I’m a nurse, he was a doctor
- I’m a giver, he’s a taker. At first I thought there could
be a ‘balance’ - but then I realized it was ‘abuse.’
So I finally had to leave.”

Another client (also female) told me her mother’s warning at the
time of her marriage - “It will never last - you’re a giver,
he’s a taker.”

A third female client, coming from a severely dysfunctional family, told
me of babysitting for a good couple - and asking the woman how they got
along so well with each other. The woman said to her simply - “Well,
we’re both givers, that’s the only way it can work.”

Each of these examples are from a female. However, once
I began to explore this subject, I found numerous couplings where the
male is a giver and the female a taker.

So why do givers often feel like they’re “going crazy”?
It’s frequent that a new client will complain - “I give and
I give - and when I want or need something back (from that person, or
from ‘anybody’), nothing comes, there’s nothing there.”
The common outcome, at least eventually, is anger and depression - which
is why they’re in my office in the first place.

A standard therapeutic response is “You must stop giving away so
much of yourself.” It seems so simple to us on the outside - if
what you are doing is hurting you, then stop doing it! And yet I’ve
often felt I’m doing some sort of subtle violence to my client by
advising him or her in that direction - even though in the immediate situation
it’s necessary advice.

Giving - and the purpose behind it

One of the developmental tasks for children is that we
teach them to share. The purpose of this lesson is the ability
to functionally exist in community with others - where giving
and taking is a necessary social balancing. When I have, and someone else
is in need, we come to learn that it makes sense to share - if for no
reason other than when the tables are turned, others will share with us.
As Lucy would say in Peanuts, “it’s basic fourth grade economic
theory.” And it’s evident that children who are not taught
to share, lack the capacity to interact well in social situations. Home
Schooled children are frequent examples of this lack. So apparently it
is not natural for a person to share, it’s the task of
the culture to instill it. But then again, once it’s taught, it
seems to become natural (like toilet training).

But there’s a poison that easily creeps in. Deep
inside each of us is as an insistent belief (false, but powerful) that
we aren’t good enough. So, if I give enough to others, then hopefully
they’ll see me as good, and then I can see myself as good (self-justification).
As some psychological language says it - if I can get enough conditional
strokes from others (i.e. strokes for doing), then I can make
up for a felt impoverishment of unconditional strokes (such as
strokes for being - from really good parents). So we learn to
give in order to get - approval, validation, to get at least something
for which we feel needy. When the preacher quotes Acts 20 before the offering,
“It is more blessed to give than to receive” it can be little
more than a soft way to say “pay your dues” and therefore
become “blessed.” The IRS is more blunt although the “dues
payment” pattern has similarities.

Psychological research tells us that those who give are
generally happier people. It satisfies a sense of caring compassion inherent
in the human heart. Yet strangely enough, it’s the churches that
panic most whenever there is discussion of eliminating the charitable
giving tax deduction. So we are taught to give and get a deduction, so
we “win both ways.” It’s faulty logic, but it seems
to work. And it works better than the same faulty logic that tells us
if we give enough, we’ll be able to justify ourselves into being
good people. Do we give because we feel good about ourselves, or do we
feel good about ourselves because we give? When we don’t feel good
enough about ourselves to begin with, the broader formula doesn’t
work. I’ll be nice to you, so you’ll feel nice about me, even
if I can’t feel nice about myself. Which is my answer to the original
question up above in the 5th paragraph.

In the next weeks, I’ll continue, speaking about

- The Taker - what’s going on inside- How to recognize a taker (before the wedding)- The differences between givers and over-givers. - Possible resolutions or ‘fixes’ for these relationship imbalance problems.

So until then, Pay Attention!

Comments (6)

Please rethink your comment about homeschooled kids!

I take offense to you citing that homeschooled children are examples of people who don’t know how to interact socially or share! Unless these homeschooled children are completely hidden from the world and homeschooled by bad parents, your statement sounds ridiculous! If homeschooled kids learn to share if the parents teach them (and especially if they have other siblings to share and interact with which is often the case with homeschooling families) - the exact same as public school kids! Also, many homeschoolers are very actively involved in social outlets and interaction with their community – moreso than public school kids. Independent research has shown on studies of college aged kids that the homeschooled kids were SUPERIOR in social skills and altruistic endeavors! Maybe as a therapist you have seen the homeschooled kids that weren’t homeschooled correctly but I’m guessing you also saw some public school kids that were not ‘schooled’ correctly. I went to public school and I NEVER interacted well socially because my home life was such a mess. I have no doubt I would have fared better in a loving homeschool environment instead of being bullied in public school. I have read a few other articles on your site – like the one on narcissism – and think so far most of your writing is great. I hope you will rethink this one predjudiced remark!Thank you.


LD,
12/29/2011

Response to LD I appreciate your response in defense of home schooled kids. However you respond as if I had made a blanket condemnation, which is not my style, my intention or my truth. My comment was made in response to some situations with which I had specific personal and professional connection. That was four years ago, and I am pleased to report that in intervening years I have also experienced the positive side of homeschooling such as what you have reported. I stand by my larger topic of whether it is “natural” for children to share. My mistake was to not have taken greater care to have it not sound like a prejudice or a condemnation to such as yourself who carry a particular sensitivity to this issue. For that I apologize.